Category Archives: Apologetics
Faith Healing
Regular readers will note that I have been following the case of Madeline “Kara” Neumann, an 11-year old girl who died as a result of parental negligence. Her parents refused to seek medical attention for their daughter, instead relying on prayer to heal her. It appears to have happened again, this time in Oregon to a 16-year old boy. No cause of death is ruled yet; an autopsy is planned and the parents are being investigated for negligence.
They are connected to a church that calls itself Followers of Christ, which isn’t linked to any mainstream denomination.
With all of my talk about parents rightly being charged for praying only and not seeking outside medical attention, readers must think that I have no respect for the power of prayer. That just isn’t true–I have nothing but the utmost respect for the power of prayer, but I’m realistic enough to know that in most cases, prayer has zero statistical effect on the outcome of illness. With this empirical data in front of me, I have no choice but to face the possibility that prayer is not meant for medical conditions. Prayer, therefore, is for our own consolation in accepting God’s will for a given situation. Prayer is meant to change us, not change God.
This isn’t a dreadful conclusion; rather, this is liberating. It means that we can seek medical help and it isn’t a sin. It means that God works his healing powers through secondary causes, the doctors and nurses involved in patient care.
What about all of the promises to answer prayer? Well, simply put: none of it promises an affirmative answer. None of it promises to deliver our wants. God promises to hear us–and hear us only. He promises to take care of our needs, not our wants. We only receive what we want in accordance with his will.
Prayer should never go by itself. Prayer should always be associated with action on our part. For example, if I pray for a new job, a new job will not drop onto my lap unless I read want ads and apply for jobs. Same goes for healing–unless you seek medical attention, odds are worse illness will beset the victim, and then, perhaps, death.
Antipelagian vs. Vitaminbook
For those of you following the exchange between Antipelagian and Vitaminbook in the comments section of this post, Antipelagian has taken the battle to his own home front here. AP pulls no punches when it comes to atheist morality, so be warned. Vitaminbook has a response of sorts, pondering atheist morality here. I’ll dissect that post later, when I have some more time.
Meanwhile, I encourage readers to follow up on that debate. It is very interesting to say the least.
Brian Sapient Punched Out
There are several rumors circulating that Brian Sapient, co-founder of the Rational Response Squad, has been brutally attacked at the American Humanist Association’s conference by Greydon Square, another member of the RRS. Apparently, the two had a disagreement over the way Sapient was handling Square’s CD sales, and Square beat Sapient. An ambulance had to be called.
There is no official word, as yet, from the RRS. Hambydammit, a core member, would neither confirm nor deny it to an interested party on the RRS forums, instead Hamby repeatedly told the inquirer to mind his own business.
Whatever my personal differences with Brian Sapient, he didn’t deserve to be attacked by Greydon Square. Square has legal methods to work out business disputes if he was unhappy with Sapient handling his affairs. Square acted like a spoiled little child. He needs to do some serious growing up.
Meanwhile, my prayers are with Sapient and Kelly this evening. Hopefully Brian has a speedy recovery. Pray also that the Lord has bigger plans for Brian Sapient than atheist activist.
UPDATE: This attack has been confirmed by Brian Sapient here in this thread at the RRS discussion board.
UPDATE: Fixed the broken link in this tread.
Calling for the Resignation of V. Gene Robinson
This is a call for V. Gene Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire, to resign is episcopate because of his unrepentant sin of homosexuality.
The apostle Paul said:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 9-10, emphasis added)
And:
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Tim 1:8-11, emphasis added)
Based on the Law’s prohibition on homosexuality (Lev 18:22) and the apostle Paul’s clear echo of it, I would say that homosexuality is wrong. Let’s look at the qualifications for a bishop (overseer):
Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim 3:2-7, emphasis added)
I am not considering Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson’s qualifications outside of the boldfaced terms. I hope he has been an good bishop in every other area and served his people well. However, he does not fit the qualifications of a bishop and should therefore resign his office.
Bishop Robinson is gay, and has joined in “marriage” to his long time partner. This is unacceptable. Homosexuality is a sin, and people who live in unrepentant sin should not serve in any capacity in ministry. This man is supposed to be the spiritual leader of his diocese, and he is “glorying in his shame” (Phil 3:19). This isn’t fair to the people of New Hampshire. Their spiritual leader can’t control his own sin, how is he supposed to counsel others to control their sins?
Until he repents of homosexuality, Bishop Robinson should not be permitted to continue in ministry.
PZ Myers and Hubris
Atheist PZ Myers, who has an extremely popular blog, a fact which continually surprises me, has made a comment in this blog entry that shows he is the modern embodiment of Satan’s war on God.
After describing the book of Genesis as a “little scrap of piss-poor poetry that half this country wants to make the backbone of our science curriculum,” Myers links to this YouTube video and continues:
somebody has tried putting the actual creation story as revealed by modern physics into the same kind of portentous, simple language that even a Mesopotamian goat-herder could understand, the point being that if a god had chosen to tell primitive people how the universe came to be, he/she/it could have done so in just as awe-inspiring a way as the false myths we’ve got.
Before we get to the comment that inspired my post, let me dissect this statement. First, he assumes that his god, science, has everything right. For Myers, epistemology begins and ends with science, that is all there is and all there ever will be. Then, he makes the assumption that ancient people are stupid with insulting comments like “even a Mesopotamian goat-herder could understand” and calling Genesis “false myths.” It is unthinkable for Myers that the Bible may actually be right. So much so that at the beginning of the presentation he is blogging about, he literally tore the Creation Story right out of Genesis.
As if I haven’t already demonstrated the hubris of PZ Myers, the final comment on this entry takes the cake: “It’s rather neat that modern scientists know more than God.” What unbridled pride! And I think we all know what happens to the proud (Prv 16:5, 18).
Homosexual Agenda?
I picked on him yesterday, too. Now I’m picking on him again. Odder Stories has this post, which I partially agree with:
Anyone who is gay, knows gay people or has an ounce of common sense should realize that the Gay Agenda myth is ridiculous. . . . But those who preach the idea of a Gay Agenda are almost never talking about a single group or person – rather, they want you to believe that the majority of homosexuals, because they are homosexual, subscribe to this subversive ‘agenda’. I have to wonder if these people imagine new ‘recruits’ being inducted into some globe-spanning, conspirational corporation. (Of course, the ‘recruits’ will be teenage boys, roped into the gay lifestyle against their will).
I don’t agree with the idea of a sweeping “Gay Agenda” embraced by all homosexuals everywhere. But I do believe that there are many who would like the voices of we, the religious, silenced forever. Our dissent from homosexual marriage and the lifestyle itself is the one voice that they cannot and will not hear.
My theory is that, in their own hearts, they know that what they do is abominable in the sight of their Creator. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), they hate the light and prefer to remain in darkness since the light will expose their sin (Jn 3:19).
Is there some agenda out there? I happen to think that there is. I think it tries to silence the voice of morality on the issue precisely because we pang their consciences. And I can back myself up with two news items that happened to cross my desk today.
A Belgian Bishop was acquitted of inciting homophobia. A gay rights activist group complained when, during an interview, the Bishop remarked, “Homosexuals have encountered a blockage in normal psychological development, rendering them abnormal. I know very well that in a few years, I could be imprisoned for holding this position, but this could mean a bit of a vacation for me.”
They are trying to silence the voices that say what they do is wrong.
In a more dramatic example, a Canadian priest is being investigated for a hate crime when he engaged in a debate where he quoted extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the letters of Pope John Paul II to prove that homosexuality is wrong according to Catholic teaching.
I’m sure that I could find more examples, but these two suffice, I think, to uphold my position: There may not be a sweeping agenda agreed on by all homosexuals everywhere, but one does exist. It seeks to silence Christians and the day will come when merely posting this on the Internet could land me in jail.
“Odder Stories” Accuses Me of Racism
How, as a Christian apologist, do I gauge how well I’m doing? By this verse:
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (Jn 15:19, emphasis added)
I figure if the secular world hates what I have to say, then I must be doing a pretty darn good job. Conversely, if the Christian world loves me, then I must also be doing a pretty good job. From the comments that I receive, I see compliments from Christians (HT: Murphy Klasing and Wickle), and denigration from the world.
The most recent worldly accusation against me is to accuse me of 18th century racism for an old post on homosexuality. Unlike most Christians, I am allowing for the possibility that homosexuality may not be a choice. But along the same regard, neither is alcoholism or rage. Those things are genetic, too. Does anyone believe that they are good things, or are they things that we may struggle with but ultimately should eliminate for the good of all? Odder Stories says:
If you see echoes of 18th century racism, you’re not alone. In what sense is homosexuality like an addiction or anger issues? Why is it a ‘corrupting influence’? For one reason only: the Bible tells us that it is. It’s against ‘God’s plan’. We must ’surrender to God through Jesus Christ’, in the process attempting to deaden a major part of ourselves. As any honest advocate of this process will admit, this does not get rid of homosexuality, it merely teaches you to live with it by giving yourself over to what, at times, is indistinguishable from a cult.
He is absolutely correct in everything that he states. Christianity asks us to die to our former selves, of which homosexuality may be a part for some people. Like me having to die to my anger issues and other more serious addictions, the homosexual in service to the Lord must die to his homosexuality.
I freely admit that the only reason to argue against homosexuality is that the Bible says that it is a sin. There are no secular grounds whatsoever for arguing against it.
I feel that I’m an honest advocate of that position since I admit that the feelings never go away. There is not a day where I don’t struggle with my more serious addiction. Not a single day. But I’m struggling with it because I know God does not permit it, and I know that He will give me the strength to endure to the end. The homosexual can find that strength, too, if he or she looks to Jesus Christ.
Terrible Advice from Atheist Revolution
VJack from Atheist Revolution has given some terrible advice about witnessing to atheists. He says not to do it. I advocate ignoring that advice completely. VJack says:
I know your church says you are supposed to do this and that you’ll win friends and magic Jesus points for your efforts. I know your bible makes you think that this is what your god wants. I even know that your failures are more important than your successes because they reinforce your persecution complex. But don’t do it.
First, Jesus–not the church–says that we are supposed to do this (see Mt 28:19-20). As disciples of Him, I don’t see us disobeying the words of our Lord because VJack says so.
Second, what exactly are these “magic Jesus points” and how do I earn them? The last time I checked, the Bible teaches that it is Jesus who saves us and we cannot earn salvation. Following His commands are done out of love and free choice rather than some sort of compulsion or game.
The best witness to atheists, I think, doesn’t come from words but the way we live our lives. As St. Francis of Assisi said, “It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.” Along the same lines, he said, “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” Living the Word of God to the best of your ability (Rom 12:9-21) will show the atheists that our chosen lifestyle is superior to their own. The atheists will want what we have. The words that VJack hates so much won’t even be necessary.
Recap: Witnessing to atheists? Do it with enthusiasm!
We’re Back in Business at God is REAL!
I’ve started posting again at God is NOT Imaginary with my answer to Brain’s so-called “refutation” of Pascal’s Wager. Click here to read it!
Women in the Bible
Many people charge the Bible with denigrating women. I’ve written and podcasted about how the Bible only elevates women. But I realize that I’ve missed something important–the concept of servant leadership.
Ephesians 5:22, the famous “Wives, submit to your own husband as to the Lord” verse, the apostle Paul seems to be denigrating women. Many atheists have pointed this verse out to me as proof of the Bible’s sexism without a true understanding of the biblical model of leadership. If the husband is supposed to be the head of the wife as Christ is of the church, what model does he follow? If he follows the world’s understanding of leadership, he’ll end up psychologically abusing his wife. He should follow the biblical model of leadership. What is that, exactly? Jesus said:
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mt 20:25-28)
Of Jesus’ deity, Paul said, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:5-7).
The Biblical evidence is clear: the husband serves his wife. He humbles himself, makes himself nothing, just like Christ did. What woman wouldn’t submit to a man who behaved that way?
Back Rome Again 